The document summarizes the Phase 1 Growth Framework report for the Sturgeon Valley area and outlines three options for Phase 2 planning by Strathcona County Council. Option 1 involves amending the Municipal Development Plan (MDP) to include additional policies guiding future developer-led area structure plans (ASPs). Option 2 is creating an area structure plan for the entire special study area. Option 3 is creating an ASP for a reduced part of the area based on infrastructure and fiscal capacity, along with MDP amendments for other areas. The options are compared in terms of project scope, public engagement requirements, and regional approval needs. Opportunities and obstacles of each option are also discussed.

1. Sturgeon Valley
Phase 1 Growth Framework
July 14, 2020

2. Phase I Growth Framework Report
Developed in partnership with key
area stakeholders between Nov 2019
through June 2020 and incorporated
several approaches including:
 Submittal of general land use
concepts plans by area
stakeholders
 Consultant support to complete
analysis related to natural area
assessments, land use planning,
travel demands forecasting and
fiscal impacts.
 Facilitated sessions and
information update sessions with
various stakeholder groups,
landowners, County Council and
intermunicipal planning partners.

3. Report Content
The Sturgeon Valley Growth
Framework report includes an
overview of the following key items:
1. Process & Engagement
2. Existing Conditions &
Background Analysis
3. Concept Scenario Development
(inclusive transportation and
fiscal impact analysis), and
4. Alternative Approaches and
Recommendations
Report is supported with studies
related to:
1. Traffic Analysis
2. Fiscal Impact Analysis
3. Environmental Features and

4. Why a Growth Framework?
The purpose of the Growth
Framework is to provide a foundation
and business case as to whether to
proceed with the development of an
Area Structure Plan(s) or an
alternative approach.

5. Landowner/Developer Request
- In late August and through to
December of 2019, individual requests
to area landowners and developers
were sent out to better understand
what was envisioned for development.
- The purpose of this process was to
better understand the expectations of
the varying landowners and developers
across the Sturgeon Valley
- Following receipt of the information,
the plans were stitched together, and
the following key tasks were completed.
1. Assessment of whether the proposed
development meets the policy
expectations
2. Analysis of the high-level traffic
network improvements needed to
support the proposed land uses, and
3. Analysis of the high-level FIA
expectations for the associated
populations

6. Land Use Statistics
dwelling units 29,198
total population 72,994
overall density 35 du/nrha
Traffic Analysis
Construction of 127 Street
- Anthony Henday to Highway 2
New Accesses to Highway 28
- Minimum of 2
Additional Travel Lanes
- To/From City of Edmonton (10 to 11 lanes)
- To/From City of St. Albert (5 to 6 lanes)
- To/From North (2 lanes)
- To/From East (1 lane)
Construction of the 112 Street
- Flyover Required
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Blended Scenario:
71% higher tax rates
53% higher debt/capita
33% lower fiscal capacity
Urban Service Area (USA) Scenario:
No change for existing ratepayers
USA Rank (lower = better) USA/18 municipalities
Res Tax Rates 18/18
Non-Res Tax Rates 17/18
Debt Limit Used 18/18
Fiscal Capacity 17/18
Landowner/Developer Concept

7. Land Use Statistics
dwelling units 8,453
total population 21,133
overall density 35 du/nrha
Traffic Analysis
Construction of 127 Street
- Anthony Henday to Sturgeon Road
New Accesses to Highway 28
- Minimum of 1
Additional Travel Lanes
- To/From City of Edmonton (3 lanes)
- To/From City of St. Albert (2 lanes)
- To/From North (1 lane)
- To/From East (0 lane)
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Blended Scenario:
17% higher tax rates
14% higher debt/capita
21% lower fiscal capacity
Urban Service Area (USA) Scenario:
No change for existing ratepayers
USA Rank (lower = better) USA/18 municipalities
Res Tax Rates 14/18
Non-Res Tax Rates 11/18
Debt Limit Used 18/18
Fiscal Capacity 16/18
30yr Consolidated

8. Land Use Statistics
dwelling units 21,672
total population 54,180
overall density 35 du/nrha
Traffic Analysis
Construction of 127 Street
- Anthony Henday to Highway 2
New Accesses to Highway 28
- Minimum of 2
Additional Travel Lanes
- To/From City of Edmonton (7 to 8 lanes)
- To/From City of St. Albert (4 lanes)
- To/From North (1 lane)
- To/From East (1 lane)
Construction of the 112 Street
- Flyover Required
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Blended Scenario:
46% higher tax rates
54% higher debt/capita
30% lower fiscal capacity
Urban Service Area (USA) Scenario:
No change for existing ratepayers
USA Rank (lower = better) USA/18 municipalities
Res Tax Rates 18/18
Non-Res Tax Rates 16/18
Debt Limit Used 18/18
Fiscal Capacity 17/18
60yr Consolidated

9. Traffic Analysis
Construction of 127 Street
- Anthony Henday to Highway 2
New Accesses to Highway 28
- Minimum of 2
Additional Travel Lanes
- To/From City of Edmonton (9 to 10 lanes)
- To/From City of St. Albert (5 lanes)
- To/From North (2 lanes)
- To/From East (1 lane)
Construction of the 112 Street
- Flyover Required
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Blended Scenario:
68% higher tax rates
52% higher debt/capita
32% lower fiscal capacity
Urban Service Area (USA) Scenario:
No change for existing ratepayers
USA Rank (lower = better) USA/18 municipalities
Res Tax Rates 18/18
Non-Res Tax Rates 17/18
Debt Limit Used 18/18
Fiscal Capacity 17/18
Full Build Out Consolidated
Land Use Statistics
dwelling units 27,004
total population 67,510
overall density 35 du/nrha

10. Traffic Analysis
Construction of 127 Street
- Anthony Henday to Sturgeon Road
New Accesses to Highway 28
- Minimum of 1
Additional Travel Lanes
- To/From City of Edmonton (2 lanes)
- To/From City of St. Albert (1 lane)
- To/From North (1 lane)
- To/From East (0 lane)
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Blended Scenario:
3% higher tax rates
10% higher debt/capita
8% lower fiscal capacity
Urban Service Area (USA) Scenario:
No change for existing ratepayers
USA Rank (lower = better) USA/18 municipalities
Res Tax Rates 7/18
Non-Res Tax Rates 9/18
Debt Limit Used 15/18
Fiscal Capacity 9/18
Net Neutral
Land Use Statistics
dwelling units 2,888
total population 7,220
overall density 35 du/nrha

11. What level of
servicing does council
want to take on
board?
Will the level of
servicing meet future
residents
expectations?
Competing interests
based on land
ownership and
location
Individual interest vs
County interest
Balance of totally
market driven vs a
structured plan driven
development
Transportation drivers
related to capital and
operational costs
Infrastructure
servicing drivers
related to capital and
operational costs
Residential vs non-
residential
development
Population
projections – what is
manageable over
what time period?
Large Planning Area –
how do you
accommodate for
change
Meeting EMRGP
policy requirements
Considerations in Moving Forward

12. Questions &
Comments

13. Phase 2 Planning Options for Council
Consideration
Option 1 - Municipal Led Municipal
Development Plan Amendment, to
Include Policy Guiding Future Market
Driven ASP Development
Option 2 - Municipal Led Area
Structure Plan for the Full Special
Study Area
Option 3 - Municipal Led Area
Structure Plan for a Reduced Part of
the Special Study Area, based on
Infrastructure and Fiscal Capacity,
and Amendment to the Municipal
Development Plan for Other Areas
Phase 2
Options

14. Phase 2 Planning Options for Council
Consideration
Option 1 - Municipal Led Municipal
Development Plan Amendment, to
Include Policy Guiding Future
Market Driven ASP Development
Option 2 - Municipal Led Area
Structure Plan for the Full Special
Study Area
Option 3 - Municipal Led Area
Structure Plan for a Reduced Part of
the Special Study Area, based on
Infrastructure and Fiscal Capacity,
and Amendment to the Municipal
Development Plan for Other Areas
Option 1
Overview - County to develop additional MDP policies
including delineation of future ASP boundaries and
more detailed planning requirements for developer
led/market driven ASP(s).
- Effectively, the policies and analysis developed to
date would be captured in MDP policy rather than a
municipally created ASP.
Project Scope
and Budget
- Phase II components of contract to be reviewed
with the County’s planning consultant and
subconsultants providing advisory services for
additional land use, transportation, and fiscal impact
analysis policies for inclusion in MDP update.
Public
Engagement
- Public Hearing in accordance with MDP
amendment. Optional public engagement would be
recommended, as a part of a broader Valley planning
engagement process.
EMRB REF
Requirement
- Amendments to MDP need to be submitted and
approved through EMRB Regional Evaluation
Framework (REF) process.
- Future ASP(s) would need to be submitted and
approved through the EMRB REF process.

15. Phase 2 Planning Options for Council
Consideration
Option 1 - Municipal Led Municipal
Development Plan Amendment, to
Include Policy Guiding Future
Market Driven ASP Development
Option 2 - Municipal Led Area
Structure Plan for the Full Special
Study Area
Option 3 - Municipal Led Area
Structure Plan for a Reduced Part of
the Special Study Area, based on
Infrastructure and Fiscal Capacity,
and Amendment to the Municipal
Development Plan for Other Areas
Option 1
Overview of
Opportunities
& Obstacles
- All proposed amendments to MDP would be in
compliance with approved Regional Context
Statement and EMRB Growth Plan and have a high
probability of regional support.
- Submission of future ASP(s) provides additional
intermunicipal planning assurance. Both the cities of
St. Albert and Edmonton will have opportunity to
view an additional REF submittal of a more specific
statutory plan. As long as ASP(s) are in compliance
with MDP and SVSSA policies, regional support
would also be expected.
- Effectively, the policies initially anticipated to be
covered within Phase II ASP portion of the project
would be transferred into MDP policy. Additional
planning policy embedded in the MDP ensures
assurance and continuity of greater transportation
and drainage master planning for the Valley
community and future Councils. Supporting plans
designating key road corridors/connections and
drainage within the SVSSA would also be provided.

16. Phase 2 Planning Options for Council
Consideration
Option 1 - Municipal Led Municipal
Development Plan Amendment, to
Include Policy Guiding Future Market
Driven ASP Development
Option 2 - Municipal Led Area
Structure Plan for the Full Special
Study Area
Option 3 - Municipal Led Area
Structure Plan for a Reduced Part of
the Special Study Area, based on
Infrastructure and Fiscal Capacity,
and Amendment to the Municipal
Development Plan for Other Areas
Option 2
Overview - County to lead the development on an ASP for the
SVSSA Areas A and B in entirety. The entire planning
area includes an area of over 30 quarter sections,
with time horizon extending multiple decades (60+
years).
- Following adoption of the ASP, developers would be
supported to bring forward Neighbourhood ASPs
(NASPs).
Project Scope
and Budget
- Additional scope of work and funding would be
required to support the Area Structure Plan’s
Transportation and Utilities Master Plan across the
entire planning area, if fully municipal funded. This is
expected to require an additional budget $400k+
based on estimates.
- There exists an opportunity to partner with the
development community on these additional report
requirements and costs. The County could request
that developers fund and complete a more detailed
Transportation Impact Assessment and Utility Plan(s)
for their unique servicing basins.

17. Phase 2 Planning Options for Council
Consideration
Option 1 - Municipal Led Municipal
Development Plan Amendment, to
Include Policy Guiding Future Market
Driven ASP Development
Option 2 - Municipal Led Area
Structure Plan for the Full Special
Study Area
Option 3 - Municipal Led Area
Structure Plan for a Reduced Part of
the Special Study Area, based on
Infrastructure and Fiscal Capacity,
and Amendment to the Municipal
Development Plan for Other Areas
Option 2
Public
Engagement
- Significant County-led public engagement with
residents in the Valley Core would be required. This
will require significant additional resources and time
given the new complexities of public health
restrictions for mass gatherings.
- Requirement for Public Hearing advertisement in
accordance with ASP submittal. Opportunities for
stakeholders and residents to provide feedback
during Public Hearing.
EMRB REF
Requirement
- ASP will need to be submitted and approved
through the EMRB REF process.
- Following adoption of the ASP, developers will be
required to submit Neighborhood ASPs (NASPs).
Overview of
Opportunities
& Obstacles
- While the size of the planning area and planning
horizons provide certainty for both long term utility
and transportation master planning, a high degree of
uncertainty remains on the likelihood of regional
support given the existing capacity issues and future
growth needs of abutting communities.
- Regional acceptance and support of ASP highly
contingent on level of detail of supportive studies
and the County’s ability to manage intermunicipal
expectations across a host of issues.

18. Phase 2 Planning Options for Council
Consideration
Option 1 - Municipal Led Municipal
Development Plan Amendment, to
Include Policy Guiding Future Market
Driven ASP Development
Option 2 - Municipal Led Area
Structure Plan for the Full Special
Study Area
Option 3 - Municipal Led Area
Structure Plan for a Reduced Part of
the Special Study Area, based on
Infrastructure and Fiscal Capacity,
and Amendment to the Municipal
Development Plan for Other Areas
Option 2
Overview of
Opportunities
& Obstacles
- While all areas will be included within the ASP
Boundary, there exists fundamental challenges with
providing all stakeholders equal opportunities for
development. With such a large planning area, there
naturally exists easier to service areas and harder to
service areas. Providing phases and timelines is
fundamental to providing some level of certainty to
landowners, investors, and development companies.
Non-contiguous growth and development can result
in greater costs on a municipality over the short and
long term.
Next Steps 1. The County will request scope change with
consultant to complete more detailed studies for
entire planning area. Additional funding will require
Council approval.
2. Alternatively, the County will seek partnership
with the development community to front end the
more detailed transportation and utility master
planning required in their individual planning areas.
3. Alternatively, the County will continue with high-
level ASP with the information and studies
completed as part of the Phase I Growth Framework
report

19. Phase 2 Planning Options for Council
Consideration
Option 1 - Municipal Led Municipal
Development Plan Amendment, to
Include Policy Guiding Future Market
Driven ASP Development
Option 2 - Municipal Led Area
Structure Plan for the Full Special
Study Area
Option 3 - Municipal Led Area
Structure Plan for a Reduced Part of
the Special Study Area, based on
Infrastructure and Fiscal Capacity,
and Amendment to the Municipal
Development Plan for Other Areas
Option 3
Overview - County to lead the development on an ASP for a
smaller area of SVSSA Areas A and B and an
amendment to the MDP for the remaining SVSSA
areas.
- Following adoption of the ASP, developers would be
supported to bring forward Neighborhood ASPs
(NASPs).
Project Scope
and Budget
- Project scope and request for additional funding
will be assessed upon final confirmation of the
reduced planning area. This is expected to require an
additional budget of $250k+ based on estimates
(somewhat less budget requirement than
considering the full planning area in Option 2).
- There exists an opportunity to partner with the
development community on these additional report
requirements and costs. The County could request
that developers fund and complete a more detailed
Transportation Impact Assessment and Utility Plan(s)
for their unique servicing basins.

20. Phase 2 Planning Options for Council
Consideration
Option 1 - Municipal Led Municipal
Development Plan Amendment, to
Include Policy Guiding Future Market
Driven ASP Development
Option 2 - Municipal Led Area
Structure Plan for the Full Special
Study Area
Option 3 - Municipal Led Area
Structure Plan for a Reduced Part of
the Special Study Area, based on
Infrastructure and Fiscal Capacity,
and Amendment to the Municipal
Development Plan for Other Areas
Option 3
Public
Engagement
- Significant County-led public engagement with
residents in the Valley Core would be required. This
will require significant additional resources and time
given the new complexities of public health
restrictions for mass gatherings.
- Requirement for Public Hearing advertisement in
accordance with ASP submittal. Opportunities for
stakeholders and residents to provide feedback
during Public Hearing.
EMRB REF
Requirement
- ASP will need to be submitted and approved
through the EMRB REF process.
- All areas outside of the preferred future
development will remain identified as either SVSSA
Area A and/or SVSSA Area B and will be identified as
such in the County’s MDP. Additional planning
consideration for advancement of planning proposals
outside of the reduced planning area will need to be
provided.
- Pending the size of the reduced planning area,
there may be a need for delineation of
Neighbourhood Area Structure Plan (NASP)
boundaries.

21. Phase 2 Planning Options for Council
Consideration
Option 1 - Municipal Led Municipal
Development Plan Amendment, to
Include Policy Guiding Future Market
Driven ASP Development
Option 2 - Municipal Led Area
Structure Plan for the Full Special
Study Area
Option 3 - Municipal Led Area
Structure Plan for a Reduced Part of
the Special Study Area, based on
Infrastructure and Fiscal Capacity,
and Amendment to the Municipal
Development Plan for Other Areas
Option 3
Overview of
Opportunities
& Obstacles
- While the selection of a preferred development
area will provide both the region and the existing
Valley community with planning certainty within a
shorter planning horizon, the planning process for
landowners outside of area will need to be further
defined.
- Pending the comprehensiveness of the submitted
ASP and additional MDP policy amendments for the
remnant SVSSA areas, there exists initial uncertainty
in the County’s ability to provide assurance in the
ability to ‘stitch’ all the greater planning
requirements of the SVSSA. To a certain degree, this
assurance is provided with additional regional
oversight as all statutory plans and amendments
need to be submitted and approved through the
EMRB REF process.

22. Phase 2 Planning Options for Council
Consideration
Option 1 - Municipal Led Municipal
Development Plan Amendment, to
Include Policy Guiding Future Market
Driven ASP Development
Option 2 - Municipal Led Area
Structure Plan for the Full Special
Study Area
Option 3 - Municipal Led Area
Structure Plan for a Reduced Part of
the Special Study Area, based on
Infrastructure and Fiscal Capacity,
and Amendment to the Municipal
Development Plan for Other Areas
Option 3
Next Steps Administration will evaluate planning area and
make a recommendation for a preferred future
development area for detailed study.
Administration’s planning recommendation will be
based upon the
following criteria (in order of importance).
1. Transportation (minimal impact to existing
communities/County independent)
2. Drainage basin (minimal impact to existing
communities/County independent)
3. Fiscal Impact Analysis
4. Water and sanitary servicing basin (County
independent)

23. Phase 2 Planning Options for Council
Consideration
Option 1 - Municipal Led Municipal
Development Plan Amendment, to
Include Policy Guiding Future Market
Driven ASP Development
Option 2 - Municipal Led Area
Structure Plan for the Full Special
Study Area
Option 3 - Municipal Led Area
Structure Plan for a Reduced Part of
the Special Study Area, based on
Infrastructure and Fiscal Capacity,
and Amendment to the Municipal
Development Plan for Other Areas
Phase 2
Options